Solar power farm coming to Disney

B

BintheMarigny

New Member
agreed this just came up in my Facebook at the same time.

JoeCamel said:
Can we go back to covering the parking lots with solar? All you need is a willing partner. Tampa Airport unveiled the TECO installation on top of its parking garage. Cars go under for shade, TECO installed and operates it and then pays TIA 15K a year for the space. That is a winner all around

http://www.tampaelectric.com/company/ourpowersystem/powergeneration/tiasolar/

I would guess WDW could generate 10Mw without even covering the whole lot and may get 50Mw if they used all available space.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    147 KB · Views: 114
Monorail_Red_77

Monorail_Red_77

Well-Known Member
Here's a shot from Latest Google Earth Imagery as of 2016-03-05. I know we have all seen it already, but to me this just looks better and you can get a better perspective of the surrounding area.

2016-03-05 - MICKEY SOLAR FARM.jpg


2016-03-05 - MICKEY SOLAR FARM 2.jpg
 
matt9112

matt9112

Well-Known Member
ford91exploder said:
I'm pretty sure it was you would not want Disney to miss out on those sweet tax incentives (which cost you and me real money) and the carbon credits which they can auction off.

This is spoken as someone who has a few Kw of Solar myself but I did not take a tax incentive to install or have one of the solar companies do a 'free' installation (which places a mechanics lien on your house for 20 years in most cases covering the cost of installation)
Click to expand...

i have heard if you mention that up front due to public outrage they will back off the lein and make it transferable....still 20 year contract though. but screw those systems if i ever get solar i want battery banks....the point is to not rely on the power company...
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
matt9112 said:
i have heard if you mention that up front due to public outrage they will back off the lein and make it transferable....still 20 year contract though. but screw those systems if i ever get solar i want battery banks....the point is to not rely on the power company...
Click to expand...

Have batteries 3700 AH of capacity in my case they are used data center UPS batteries.
 
Master Yoda

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
matt9112 said:
i have heard if you mention that up front due to public outrage they will back off the lein and make it transferable....still 20 year contract though. but screw those systems if i ever get solar i want battery banks....the point is to not rely on the power company...
Click to expand...
That is the point I am at as well. Current, non-battery backed up solar systems only work financially if the local power company buys the extra power you generate. The second they decide they no longer want to do that, most solar systems become just slightly better than useless.

It looks like solar will not be on the table for us until Tesla's power wall becomes reliably available.
 
Brad Bishop

Brad Bishop

Well-Known Member
Master Yoda said:
That is the point I am at as well. Current, non-battery backed up solar systems only work financially if the local power company buys the extra power you generate. The second they decide they no longer want to do that, most solar systems become just slightly better than useless.

It looks like solar will not be on the table for us until Tesla's power wall becomes reliably available.
Click to expand...

What's worse, and I never thought about it until I read an article on it, is that if you're selling your power back to the power company for the price you'd normally pay, which most people thinks "make sense", you're being subsidized by everyone without solar power (outside of the normal tax incentives that already subsidize you).

It works like this: When you buy power from the power company that they've generated, in that price isn't just the raw power but the cost of the infrastructure to get that power to your home. All of those power lines, crews, pole, distribution stations, etc. are all included. The cost of the actual power being generated is just a fraction of that KW/Hr that you're paying. When you sell it back at the same rate that you're paying, you're forcing the power company, usually through local/state laws, to buy your power at a premium (they're paying you the total they'd be charging you but you're not supplying any of that infrastructure (well, I suppose you could argue the maintenance of your solar farm but that's minuscule compared to the infrastructure the power company is providing) so the power company loses every time they have to buy power from you and, thus, they end up having to charge non-solar folks more for the power they have to buy from you.
 
1stWDW96'

1stWDW96'

Member
I have searched the forums for any threads about the Epcot solar array. I could not find any so I hope this isn't a way to common question. Is WDW attempting to replace it's current power plants? Or are they just supplementing their grid. The solar array is apparently capable of producing 5megawatts. That doesn't seem sufficient for their power demands at all. Just curious.
Epcot solar panels.png

There are additional panels north of the Mickey silhouette.
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
Giant Tax deduction and 'Carbon Credits' to sell, Though I do applaud Disney for a step in the right direction as FL and the Southwest are ideal for Solar Power as peak solar output and peak electric demand are neatly matched.
 
M

mj2v

Well-Known Member
Brad Bishop said:
What's worse, and I never thought about it until I read an article on it, is that if you're selling your power back to the power company for the price you'd normally pay, which most people thinks "make sense", you're being subsidized by everyone without solar power (outside of the normal tax incentives that already subsidize you).

It works like this: When you buy power from the power company that they've generated, in that price isn't just the raw power but the cost of the infrastructure to get that power to your home. All of those power lines, crews, pole, distribution stations, etc. are all included. The cost of the actual power being generated is just a fraction of that KW/Hr that you're paying. When you sell it back at the same rate that you're paying, you're forcing the power company, usually through local/state laws, to buy your power at a premium (they're paying you the total they'd be charging you but you're not supplying any of that infrastructure (well, I suppose you could argue the maintenance of your solar farm but that's minuscule compared to the infrastructure the power company is providing) so the power company loses every time they have to buy power from you and, thus, they end up having to charge non-solar folks more for the power they have to buy from you.
Click to expand...

ultimately, if you include the true costs of using any fuel source, include ALL costs. Funny how anti solar always want to include everything, but the carbon industries only want to include certain costs.

Include defense costs of totalitarian regimes in the middle east, the wars we have fought, the spoiling of the Gulf during the deep water horizon disaster, and the fouling of the air that breathe, yea, all of that does not count....

The power companies are afraid of solar, as it is a disruptive force. That is why there is a concerted effort to fight and discredit solar and other alternative energy source.

Just look to the "solar" amendment on the Florida ballot this November. Who is funding this misleading nonsense? The power companies....

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fred-grimm/article69905142.html

The same people behind the tobacco industry, lead based paint industry, and the anti solar industry are all based around the same groups.
 
Brad Bishop

Brad Bishop

Well-Known Member
mj2v said:
ultimately, if you include the true costs of using any fuel source, include ALL costs. Funny how anti solar always want to include everything, but the carbon industries only want to include certain costs.

Include defense costs of totalitarian regimes in the middle east, the wars we have fought, the spoiling of the Gulf during the deep water horizon disaster, and the fouling of the air that breathe, yea, all of that does not count....

The power companies are afraid of solar, as it is a disruptive force. That is why there is a concerted effort to fight and discredit solar and other alternative energy source.

Just look to the "solar" amendment on the Florida ballot this November. Who is funding this misleading nonsense? The power companies....

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fred-grimm/article69905142.html

The same people behind the tobacco industry, lead based paint industry, and the anti solar industry are all based around the same groups.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.

If solar were economical, everyone would have it. It's why incandescent lightbulbs went away (you didn't need the law signed in by GWB) and why people are moving to LEDs. You don't need to convince people, "Hey, CFLs are better than incandescent - here's a tax subsidy!," or, "LED bulbs are better than CFLs.. here's a tax subsidy!" - people get it. With solar, it's never been that way. It's never been that way with electric cars (the idea of electric cars is right around 100 years old now as being "the future" - if it were "the future" you wouldn't need tax subsidies for Tesla (you're subsidizing rich people buying fancy cars)). Things that are economical and make sense fall into place all on their own. There's generally no grand scheme against them (sometimes, yes, but generally no) and, more often than not, there are grand schemes behind things with people telling us, "We know you don't want to buy it but we have determined it's better - here's a tax subsidy!"
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom